S (A Child), Re:

In determining a child’s future living arrangements, the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration. Where protective measures are proposed for foreign travel, the court must assess their practical reliability against the evidence, including the parties’ conduct and the effectiveness of previous safeguards. An order for contact must reflect the child’s welfare and the need for stable and continuing relationships with both parents. Where family circumstances create immediate difficulties, a family assistance order may be made under section 16 of the Children Act 1989.

The proceedings concerned the future arrangements for S, aged four, after his father took him from England to Greece in January 2014 and retained him there. The child was subsequently returned to England pursuant to orders made in Hague Convention proceedings. The father ultimately conceded that S should live with his mother in England, but sought extensive contact, including travel to Greece. The mother opposed foreign travel, relying on the father’s conduct, the history of the Greek proceedings and the inadequacy of proposed safeguards. The court also considered the child’s welfare, the mother’s mental health, contact arrangements and whether family assistance was required.

1. Welfare and living arrangements. The court applied the welfare principle and welfare checklist under sections 1(1), 1(3) and 1(5) of the Children Act 1989. S should live with his mother in England. The evidence from his English pre-school, guardian and treating professionals, viewed in context, showed a generally ordinary child who required stability and nurturing.
2. Foreign travel. An Annex 2 certificate, surrender of passports and visas, and the father’s assurances did not provide sufficient protection. The history showed that the Greek proceedings had been procured and conducted in circumstances which seriously undermined confidence in the father and in the effectiveness of safeguards. The father could not presently be trusted to return S or to comply reliably with arrangements. Foreign travel was therefore refused.
3. Contact. The father was to have substantial staying contact in England, including periods during major holidays and alternate half terms, together with Skype contact three or four times weekly. Appropriate arrangements were also made for contact with the wider paternal family, subject to S’s welfare.
4. Parental conduct and support. The father’s evidence was unreliable and dishonest in material respects, and he had failed to recognise the harm caused by removing S from his home and separating him from his mother. The mother was generally a truthful witness but was required to avoid exposing S to adult disputes and inappropriate publicity. Both parents were directed to attend an SPIP.
5. Family assistance. A family assistance order under section 16 of the Children Act 1989 was made for one year to support the mother and S during the transition and implementation of contact.